Where Do Your Citations Come From? Citation-Constellation: A Free, Open-Source, No-Code, and Auditable Tool for Citation Network Decomposition with Complementary BARON and HEROCON Scores

Understanding the geographic reach and community structure of one's scholarly citations is increasingly valuable for career development, grant applications, and collaboration discovery -- yet accessible tools for answering these questions remain scarce. Existing bibliometric platforms either require costly institutional subscriptions or expose only aggregate citation counts without granular per-author metadata. We present CiteRadar, an open-source system that accepts a single Google Scholar user identifier and automatically produces a structured output folder containing: the author's complete publication list, all retrieved citing papers with enriched author metadata, two ranked author tables (by citation frequency and by h-index), a plain-text statistical summary, and a self-contained interactive HTML world map -- all from a single command-line invocation. CiteRadar integrates five heterogeneous data sources -- Google Scholar, OpenAlex, CrossRef, Semantic Scholar, and OpenStreetMap Nominatim -- through a carefully engineered five-stage pipeline. Key technical contributions include: (1) a Scholar meta-string parser resilient to Unicode non-breaking-space separators, a pervasive but undocumented quirk in Scholar's HTML that silently corrupts venue and year fields when unhandled; (2) a two-stage author disambiguation system using stop-word-filtered institution name similarity to guard against the well-known same-name entity-merging failure mode in bibliometric databases, demonstrated to eliminate h-index attribution errors of up to 9x the correct value; (3) an OpenAlex web-URL to API-URL conversion fix that raises the fraction of author records with city-level location data from 0% to ~60%; and (4) a logarithmically-scaled interactive Folium world map with per-city researcher popups, rendered as a fully self-contained HTML file.

Assessing a cited paper's impact is typically done by analyzing its citation context in isolation within the citing paper. While this focuses on the most directly relevant text, it prevents relative comparisons across all the works a paper cites. We propose Crystal, which instead jointly ranks all cited papers within a citing paper using large language models (LLMs). To mitigate LLMs' positional bias, we rank each list three times in a randomized order and aggregate the impact labels through majority voting. This joint approach leverages the full citation context, rather than evaluating citations independently, to more reliably distinguish impactful references. Crystal outperforms a prior state-of-the-art impact classifier by +9.5% accuracy and +8.3% F1 on a dataset of human-annotated citations. Crystal further gains efficiency through fewer LLM calls and outperforms prior baselines using an open-weight model, enabling scalable, cost-effective citation impact analysis. In a case study of ACL Test-of-Time award-winning papers, we find that Crystal's impact characterizations align closely with long-term scientific recognition. We release Crystal-Bank, a 46.8k-paper dataset with rankings and impact labels, along with code.

Citation-based measures of scientific influence typically treat citations as uniform signals, ignoring the different roles that cited works play in a paper's contribution. We introduce contribution-based credit scoring for research articles: a structured citation analysis that decomposes a paper's credit between its own original contribution and the prior work it builds on. Motivated by a cooperative-game view of scientific credit, we propose the contribution tree, a hierarchical framework that conserves importance across the document structure and separates original from citation-derived contribution. To make this framework scalable, we use LLMs as noisy comparative estimators of local importance. We further extend the model to article collections by propagating contributions through weighted citation graphs, yielding corpus-level contributions and normalized influence scores. Our experiments suggest that our framework captures contribution signals beyond surface-level heuristics. Our code is available at https://github.com/sanaebrahimi/Importance_Scoring/